The A/theist Utopia?

Aaw a post that intrigued me regarding: a heaven with no G/god.In short, an a/theist Utopia. Could Quantum Sciences be just such an approach, like all other religions, to the concept of Utopia. A heaven on earth? If yes, is it realistic; attainable and by what methodology; practices? Is cloning another type of Utopia, following the concept of reincarnation...

I'll answer your question with a question. Can a theist rationaly and honestly say there is such a thing as nirvana, heaven or such a thing as utopia?

Just as there is an angle to agree with, there will always be oposition to said concept. One could even say there are no such things and no such thing could exist, in a universe of eating and survival or distruction. For every life, there is an end. For every concept, there is an equally valid alternative.

If we did not see or perhaps more importantly judge 'this' from 'that' and instead viewed these opposites just a they are. Our idea of utopia would be crushed and the concept of utopia will no longer be a concept.

Anything is possible. If we are able to see beyond the dual nature of our existence we might then realize that with or without the commonly accepted concept of God, heaven on earth is achievable. Just might take time.

A method of transferring/transcending from one body to another, which is essentially what reincarnation is. Returning to a physical state, while maintaining previous knowledge/experience, until one reaches the highest level of enlightenment or jinn.

I am aware, presently, they are working deeply on transferring information from the mind onto computer disc (silica) and have even achieved 3D replication. so, if the composite material and blueprints existed, cloning could be taken to a new level, by building humans and then uploading the saved data to their brain. sounds kind of Frankenstein-ish,yes, but they are supposedly getting closer.

Along with this is genetic altering, with the ability to pro-vaccinate and avoid deformities, sicknesses, etc -even choose the sex and look of an individual.

I am inclined to think that the latter is the true Atheist Utopia.Seem only logical, given their belief of when you're dead, you're dead.The only way to live forever, according to their meditations, is by this process.And, you said it: compiling/containing the sheer volume of energy in a single human mind, is far out of reach -even with the precisest of technology.

Cloning doesn't make you live forever. A copy is not and never will be you. You are a combination of everything you are now. A copy, even with your memories copied on to it is still not you. But no one else will be able to tell.

I'm sorry, but I don't find your first question explicable. Could "Quantum Sciences" be an approach to the concept of an atheist Utopia? What does that mean?

I think I understand your second question. You are equating cloning -- coupled with the transference of "self" into the new body -- with immortality. I guess you could equate it with immortality, yes. However, during this transfer are we copying the "self," or moving the "self?" If consciousness is a consequence of the anatomy and physiology of the brain, then exactly duplicating my brain would result in an another instance of me. :-)

Hello Chasuk,Right, the first query was deliberately broad-scope and open to reply/consideration. Although, many of the Quantum practices are theoretical, I cannot dismiss them for lack of provability, same as any other mythology or ideology. How they relate to Atheist Utopia, however is interesting -to me.

The second is interesting in similarity of concepts to many Eastern philosophies/religions.

Keeping in tune to the thread, I am reading more and more that an Atheist-like Utopia, is one of the many goals of present medicine and other scientific practices. And while I agree a technology greater than nanotechnology is required, do you, as an atheist, see such as a type of Atheist Utopia?

I guess I don't know what you mean by "Quantum practices," or how they mighty apply to atheist utopias. I'll do a bit of googling.

As for the second question, I don't see a connection between engineered immortality and utopia, no. A utopia is a place where everything is perfect, and a population of immortal imperfect persons isn't going to make a perfect place.

First, there can be a heaven without a G/god. If what we are talking about is a higher plane of existence, or a place we go to after death, (call it heaven or spiritual realms), then I believe so, I know there is another plane of existence after death, (but don't ask me what it looks like, because it would be based on my flawed perceptions).

As for the atheist Utopia, that would be harder.

Unless atheism takes over the world, such a utopia would have to be the size of a town or city, and probably a closed community, (if a community is closed, can it be called Utopian?).

I don't honestly believe in the concept of a Utopia. So the idea of an atheist utopia also doesn't make any sense to me. To myself the word Utopia goes and in hand with Fascism, another concept for which I have much animosity towards.

I understand why you would have antipathy towards fascism, but I don't understand why you would have it towards utopia. The idea of a utopia is unrealistic, but there is nothing intrinsically evil about it, as far as I can see.

Basically the idea of a utopia is the same as the concept of a perfect world. What is perfect to one person is flawed to another. The concept is the same. The idea of fascism is also similar but implies forcing someone's ways of life on everyone else which is for the purpose of creating a utopia for a particular individual or set of like minded individuals.

Well, Fascism would certainly define the Romulus-Remus system, which many countries still implore today. A national or international state of utopia, is of course something others have attempted, without complete success, be it through assimilation, genocide, fear or premeditated revolution leading to dictatorships.

However, since a traditional atheist is generally self-reliant/self-responsible, the utopia would be scaled according to each ones consideration of it. I believe Mr Hardy said it best, that unless the [religion] of atheism takes over the world, [like any other fascist regime], it would be scaled down to the size of a town or small city. {bracketed words are my additions}

Still, on the larger scale, should the Agnostic pendulum swing in favor, atheism would have far more political and social standing than it currently does. Presently, it is not socially popular to be an Atheist, but highly popular to be Agnostic, more so than even a Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Pagan -and even Freemason or Law of Attraction-ist. And with that swing, comes Agnostic Utopian concepts, which would influence Atheism's fundamental practices on both the social and individual scale. Oddly, the only sect that would potentially through a monkey wrench into any Utopian concept is Gnosticism.

One could argue that an Atheist has achieved a semi-Utopian state, based on their fundamentals, having thoroughly distanced/freed themselves from any/all theological systems/practices. The other portion would be a complete fulfillment of self-reliance/responsibility as an individual. James.

Wow, what a load of nonsense! Sorry. That is my unsensored opinion. But I should explain why I think so. Atheism, especially modern atheism is based on free and critical thinking. To Mr Hardy: atheism can't be a religion since it's very definition is anti religion. We have no church, no sense of worship, no dogmatic rules of conduct, and the only concensus is that we don't believe in god and value evidence and logic as the ultimate compass towards truth. Many of us don't agree on things politically or socially. Take my closest atheist confidant, he is a socialist and I am something else entirely. I know some republican atheists, and democrat atheists and have met a couple communist atheists (not many). As far as popularity. We live in a world not yet out of it's non intellectual mindset. Education is still NOT valued above "spiritual" enlightenment (how one finds "enlightenment" from spirituality is beyond me even when I thought I was). Saying that atheists have found any sort of utopia is to myself kind of a joke. However, each and every person in the world is solely responsible for themselves even if they would like to blame a god or a cruel world for the quality of their life. This is the reason utopia can never exist, in any philosophy, because we are not dead. What I mean to say is each and everyone of us is not and never will be a mindless robot... Though some people act like they are. Each person is not a clone. Even if we appear the same we are all different and have different wants and needs and struggle will never vanish, no matter how perfect things appear. It will always be short term. Even Rome fell.

Ha ha... I was a Christian until I realized that most Christians were not very nice people to be around. In reference to some other conversations here, I would not want to spend eternity with other Christians.

For real though. I left christianity when I went to a monestary in northern L.A.. They weren't like the people I left behind, not at all. They listened to what I had to say and didn't ostracize for my lack of knowledge or my contempt for their customs. A far cry from the bigoted and negligent past.

Yeah, some people are more accepting than others of the differences we all have. That is what I like about the area of town I live in. It's the college area. The university here has people from all over the world.

It would be ironic if the atheists ran 'heaven' and expelled the believers to 'atheist hell' where all those of faith were delivered to, leaving all the atheists together in one place, and the believers together in another, thus achieving the same result either way!

The big problem then (for the atheists) would be what to do with the agnostics.

My problem then, would be to wonder if I really wanted to spend eternity with the fundies I see in the bible belt..... that may cause me to believe again in atheism.

The goal of the atheist is not to separate people but to unite them in true knowledge and truth no matter who they are or what they believe and to help make our world a better place by working together. The Goal of the believer is to unite people under a fantasy of fanatical worship of a being that has no evidence for his existence and condemning all those who will not believe or follow their rule. If there were an "atheist heaven" atheists would not have to separate the believer from us because the believer would have to accept the ultimate reality that is their "heaven"... but such a notional fantasy as you have concocted is one of prejudicial hatred for those of us who refuse to believe as you do and who are willing to argue with you. We do not hate the believers we merely want to roll our eyes and keep them from hurting each other when they find someone as a heretic or "ungodly" in any way.

Agua, I make this statement to you and all other believers or other people for which I have had heated and often times seemingly unfriendly arguments with... "I may hate everything you say but I will fight to my death for your right to say it." That is pretty much all I have to say about that and this ridiculous concept of utopia, heaven and hell.

How would you acheive total happiness and satisfaction for every individual? You can wipe out disease, war and poverty but that isn't necessarily utopia. Everyone has different hopes and dreams. I can't see humanity finding a way to create a heaven on earth. For our physical needs, yes. Not emotionally, or spiritually.

And cloning isn't reincarnation. It is just a physical carbon copy. I don't think we'll every be able to transfer a lifetime of experience and memory from one body to another.

Well, according to a/theist beliefs, the brain is all there is, so transferring the data from one to the next could be done, which is essentially a form of reincarnation. Same person, different body -organic or silica based.

Still, atheism, under the tutorial of science, is making major claims and supposed breakthroughs that would indeed vanquish all disease, war, poverty.

But, I am leaning toward you regarding the emotional. The spiritual, I gather, is not applicable in the Atheist Utopia. Such a thing does not exist, to them, only logic and common sense (instinct).

The transferance of consciousness is a scary thought. I doubt, if science finds a way to do that, it will result in a utopia. Not in the short run. People such as you and I would never have access to the technology.

I take the neuroanatomical view; that consciousness is a consequence of the anatomy and physiology of the brain. It doesn't exist anywhere else. Were I able to duplicate it, I wouldn't be duplicating part of it, as in your river, but all of it. I would continue to physically nourish it, but the brain would eventually die, and that instance of my consciousness would cease to be.

On the one hand he says there is no way of telling the brain is where consciousness is then on the other hand that it comes from unconscious complexity? He also claims that consciousness cannot be found in the universe.

How can you find something you do not yet know how to measure except for the end result and not the process?

Why is it so easy for us to accept that we have technology that can capture waves or whatever in the universe that enable us to watch TV, listen to Radios, browse the internet? Technology that has many parts precisely constructed so we can?

Why is it not so easy however to explore that perhaps we are like a TVs etc. A thing we call a body in particularly the brain that is precisely constructed in such a way we are able to experience what is described as consciousness?

The main difficulty in scientific studies of consciousness is the fact that there is no good scientific definition of what it actually is.

It is usually defined in vague terms of awareness of surroundings, but that doesn't really capture the full scope. It's more than just the ability to look at a face and say "that's a face" - my digital camera does that, and it is not considered conscious.

In a more expansive definition, it is the sum total of all brain activity. Though this isn't very useful either, since the brain does a lot of multitasking. We don't consider the regulation of our pulse and breathing rates "conscious," but the brain does it.

Even if we limit the definition to the brain activity prompted by external stimuli, it's still a bit too expansive - you're probably not consciously aware of the constant muscle movements your brain triggers to keep you balanced in response to signals from your inner ear, but the brain is doing it.

Emotions are products the brain because without the brain (medical intervention to perform surgery) we don't feel emotions. Emotions are simple what evolution gave us for survival. All mammals experience emotions, but not all mammals feel the same emotions. For instance Polar bears experience very little fear because they don't need fear for survival, but a gazelle needs fear to stay alive. Without fear he'd walk right into a lions den. The gazelle without fear doesn't propogate the species.

I'm saying emotions DO help make the persons we have become. Every experience we have defines us, but there is nothing spiritual about emotions. All emotions that humans feel are relevant to human evolution. All are necessary.

Love and jealousy are also needed for our survival. They keep us together as that is how we are stronger.

Our brains and body define us, without either we are dead just as we were before our birth. Nothingness. This is the reality. I don't like it either, but just because we don't like it doesn't make it so.

Agree because a Utopian society would also require the perfect human being to clone. Assuming duplicating the brain with perfect consciousness etc etc is possible. Since perfect is a perception, it may be as you say, they would still need to deal with what we do nowadays.

Sure, I'd agree with that. I think social interactions at the personal and societal level shape our brains even more than genetics. Language particularly - it shapes the way our brains grow and how we compartmentalize information.

Yes they are now, I do agree. Perhaps that is because they know now what frequencies these waves vibrate at. Did they know this before the Radio etc was invented? You cannot measure a wave you do not know exists until someone like the Radio inventor (cant remember who it was) actually discovers it.

If they do not believe consciousness exists outside the brain then they will not know how to measure it. Until someone can find the frequencies they are less likely to look at measuring whatever.

That's not the way that science works. Scientists observe X, form a theory to explain X, and then gather evidence to test its accuracy. Maxwell and Lorenz had observed things in nature, and then devised electromagnetic theory to explain them.

If there were natural phenomenon which suggested that consciousness existed outside of the brain, then scientists would actively seek to measure it and explain its origin. The natural phenomenon has to exist first. The job of science isn't to look for confirmation of favorite beliefs, but rather to provide the best provisional explanation of observed phenomenon.

Yes so I am told many times that is how science works. It makes sense that if they do not believe or rather cannot define scientifically what it is, then any natural phenomenon suggesting the consciousness exists out of the brain would not be actively sought.

You could make the same argument about any other branch of science. Physicists have never looked for an Intelligent Pusher as an explanation for why objects fall, and thus have accepted gravity. Doctors have never actively explored Stork Theory to explain where babies come from, and just accept sexual reproduction as fact. Geologists have never really looked for the stack of infinite turtles holding up the world, so they have unfairly ruled out Infinite Turtle Theory.

These ideas are absurd when we apply them to hard science, so why should they get a pass in a squishy science like neurology? It is not the job of science to chase down every crazy idea that might or might not be an actual phenomenon. The phenomenon has to be observed first. The evidence so far points to the brain controlling the mind and not vice versa.

I wholeheartedly embrace scientism, "the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview . . . is superior to all other interpretations of life" (quoting Wikipedia, for its succinctness).

I reject mind-body dualism, or any concept of soul/spirit/mind/consciousness which invokes the mystical or transcendent.

Concepts are ideas, ideas describe how one may experience of understand. In saying that conceptually you can describe what is evident. Whether or not one will accept that evidence is subject to ones perception of course.

Given that premise then....the only word you can take on both is your own. Mind and God can only been described. Mind is experienced but is nothing tangible. God can be experienced but is nothing tangible in a sense depending on ones view of God. If you experience either you will know whether they exist or not without having to rely on any one else's word for it.

Disregarding any subjective God experience is understandable if we have not cultivated discernment. In saying that it is the same with other mind experiences.

It is said that our brain tries to decode millions of bits of information per second and only succeeds at decoding around 10% or something like that. This implies that we perhaps have not activated/fired up the neural pathways that are able to decode more of the information.

Healing is actually more of a genetic thing. Frogs and humans have the same gene for healing, however, our's turns off at a certain point, during the healing process. So, you might be able to grow back a little bone, but nothing like an entire limb.